17 réponses à ce sujet

[Trefalen]

What do you think of this one?

http://www.tigerdire...3712&CatId=3669


Specifications
 
Diablotek VTX Radeon HD 5670 1024MB DDR5    Lifestyle:  
Performance
   Chipset:   ATI Radeon
  
   GPU Series:   ATI Radeon HD 5000
  
   GPU/VPU:   RADEON HD 5670
  
   Additional Features:   ATI Avivo HD Technology  ATI Eyefinity Technology 
  
   Maximum Digital Resolution:   2560 x 1600
  
   Video Memory:   1GB
  
   Memory Type:   DDR5
 
    Memory Interface:   128-bit
 
    Stream Processors:   400
 
    Core Clock:   775 MHz
 
    Memory Clock:   4000 MHz
 
    Interface Type:   PCI Express 2.0
 
    Interface Speed:   x16
 
    Connector(s):   DVI
    HDMI
    VGA
 
    Multiple Monitors Support:   Yes
 
    Max. Monitors Supported:   3
 
    Multi-GPU Support:   CrossFire-X
 
    Overclocked:   No
 
    APIs:   DirectX 11
  
   1080p Support:   Yes
 
   Video Output:   DVI
    HDMI
    VGA
 
    Low Profile:   No
  
   Cooling Type:   Fan
 
   Minimum PSU Wattage Requirement:   400 Watt 
 

Modifié par Trefalen, 25 octobre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Gorath Alpha]

I am unfamiliar with the brand name; my suspicion is its a house brand applied to generic products at Tiger Direct, and my instinct is to sidestep that one for some name I have past good experience with. I will visit Newegg, with which I've had much better results than from Tiger Direct, and the edit my comments after that.

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx

That's an XFX, $80 after rebate.  One of the best warranties you can find from XFX

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 25 octobre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Ganondorf2002]

Either card would be decent. The only thing I would say to consider is the bit rate. Both cards above ar 1 gb of ram with 128 bit. You might experience some bottlenecking on games that are heavy in the resources.  Generally a video card's bit rate should be half that of the amount of ram onboard.  Just to throw that out for consideration.

Modifié par Ganondorf2002, 25 octobre 2010 - 01:02 .

[DABhand]

Ganondorf2002 wrote...

Either card would be decent. The only thing I would say to consider is the bit rate. Both cards above ar 1 gb of ram with 128 bit. You might experience some bottlenecking on games that are heavy in the resources.  Generally a video card's bit rate should be half that of the amount of ram onboard.  Just to throw that out for consideration.

Dunno where you got that info from but that is wrong.

Of course a higher memory bus is nice, but even a Nvidia 480 has around 384 bit memory bus. The 5970 usually is at 512.

That is why the cache on the CPU is needed, the cache works faster than any type of GDDR out there. So no bottlenecking will happen, unless for some strange reason a CPU didnt have a cache.

[Trefalen]

Well did some checking, on my system and I have a 600w power supply, so that seems to be adequate. Lots to consider..

It should be said I'm on a PC(duh) with windows xp sp3, and 4 gig of ram. 2.8 ghz cpu. w/HT.

I noticed on New egg, those with 1gb of ram, had 128 bit, Those with less than 1gb, had over 512..O.o

Modifié par Trefalen, 25 octobre 2010 - 01:59 .

[Gorath Alpha]

Ganondorf2002 wrote...

Either card would be decent. The only thing I would say to consider is the bit rate. Both cards above ar 1 gb of ram with 128 bit. You might experience some bottlenecking on games that are heavy in the resources.  Generally a video card's bit rate should be half that of the amount of ram onboard.  Just to throw that out for consideration.

I've only briefly scanned the other criticism of your statement, and at first glance, it also seemed to include an inaccuracy.  I'll look at it again, of course.  Mainline cards are typically 128 bit cards, and as such, normally handle 256 MBs quite easily.  The bandwidth fits that much.  Occasionally, when they have fast memory and fast core speeds, they can handle VRAM to 512, making the full GB nothing but a scam, intended to encourage your belief that your are really getting something special. 

But games are designed to move the textures around rapidly, and just can't slow down to access that second 512 MBs, unless or until you have a faster card with a wider bandwidth, such as a 5830, 5850, and 5870.  The only serious criticism against that marketing scam is the extra cost providing power to RAM that's not used, and the extra heat also generated requires more cooling to dispose of.  TTBOMK, the architectural improvements in the current generations of video graphics have been most applicable in the usability of the Second step up over the memory system bit size, in this case, from 256 to 512, making the 512 much more frequently and regularly available than previously. 

Had I seen a 512 MB card in the Newegg list of HD 5670s that was priced right, from a brand I liked, I would have named that one instead. 

Now, to the second part; an HD 5670 isn't fast enough to be bottlenecked by much in the way of a usable CPU to use here in this game.  We are usually referring to either a CPU whose speed is being limited by a slow GPU, or vice versa.  IMO, neither applies here.  The term just doesn't usually get used with regard to the memory system bandwidth limitation, either.  

OK, now I just ran that through kind of off the top of my head, and I've been up for more than the usual 16 hour stretch, meaning I could have been mentally out somewhere in left field. 

DABhand wrote...

That is why the cache on the CPU is
needed, the cache works faster than any type of GDDR out there. So no
bottlenecking will happen, unless for some strange reason a CPU didnt
have a cache.

AFAIK, CPU cache and video graphics
speeds are unrelated.  You are correct that the usage of the term
bottlenecking was incorrectly applied.  Again, let me stipulate that I
am tired, sleepy, etc.  If I've screwed this up, that's why.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 25 octobre 2010 - 02:39 .

[DABhand]

Gorath, any memory access that requires the CPU uses the cache to minimize bottlenecking, the only way the GPU will bottleneck the CPU is when the card is being used over its limits forcing the CPU to work harder and constantly filling the L3 cache but even still as you noticed yourself the bus bit rate has no bearing on bottlenecking a CPU

[CrustyCat]

DABhand wrote...

Ganondorf2002 wrote...

Either card would be decent. The only thing I would say to consider is the bit rate. Both cards above ar 1 gb of ram with 128 bit. You might experience some bottlenecking on games that are heavy in the resources.  Generally a video card's bit rate should be half that of the amount of ram onboard.  Just to throw that out for consideration.

Dunno where you got that info from but that is wrong.

Of course a higher memory bus is nice, but even a Nvidia 480 has around 384 bit memory bus. The 5970 usually is at 512.

That is why the cache on the CPU is needed, the cache works faster than any type of GDDR out there. So no bottlenecking will happen, unless for some strange reason a CPU didnt have a cache.

I believe the bottlenecking occurs because the cpu cannot keep up with the gpu.  If it's a slower cpu with a newer high end gpu for example, it cannot feed the gpu fast enough, that is where bottlenecking comes from.  Doesn't have anything to do with cpu cache.

[DABhand]

CrustyCat wrote...

DABhand wrote...

Ganondorf2002 wrote...

Either card would be decent. The only thing I would say to consider is the bit rate. Both cards above ar 1 gb of ram with 128 bit. You might experience some bottlenecking on games that are heavy in the resources.  Generally a video card's bit rate should be half that of the amount of ram onboard.  Just to throw that out for consideration.

Dunno where you got that info from but that is wrong.

Of course a higher memory bus is nice, but even a Nvidia 480 has around 384 bit memory bus. The 5970 usually is at 512.

That is why the cache on the CPU is needed, the cache works faster than any type of GDDR out there. So no bottlenecking will happen, unless for some strange reason a CPU didnt have a cache.

I believe the bottlenecking occurs because the cpu cannot keep up with the gpu.  If it's a slower cpu with a newer high end gpu for example, it cannot feed the gpu fast enough, that is where bottlenecking comes from.  Doesn't have anything to do with cpu cache.

The cache is there to stop bottlenecking full stop of any type of memory accessing, that is what the cache was designed for. What else did you think the CPU cache was for?

[CrustyCat]

I know what cpu cache is for. But usually when people are talking about gpu bottlenecking, they are talking about the cpu not being able to feed information to the gpu fast enough. Everything goes through the CPU for pre processing before it goes to the GPU to actually process.



Now say you have a **** CPU, it can send 50 bits of data to the graphics card per second, but the graphics card is able to process 100 bits of data per second. So basically, the CPU is holding the GPU back because it is not sending enough info to the GPU to keep up.



If the CPU sends more information (by being more powerful) the GPU would actually perform better, so you would notice frame rates and graphical benchmarks increasing when increasing the CPU power.

[DABhand]

Not everything goes through the CPU, textures are kept on the GPU's cache for texture filtering. ATI cards do use the cache more so the CPU can read/write the cache for Physx and CUDA emulation. But for both Nvidia and ATI the information sent is mostly vertexes, texels etc



Plus the CPU doesnt send directly to the GPU, the cache does >.< Which is much faster than any DDR or GDDR out there.



Do bear in mind that the highest core speed for a GPU at the moment is just shy of 1Ghz would have to be a pretty crappy old CPU in your example and also if the L3 cache was extremely slow speeds.





Little example of a few MB's of data from the GPU on its wonderful journey of buses.



GPU > CPU Cache > CPU for calculation > CPU Cache > GPU GDDR > GPU

[Trefalen]

Basically I want to run DOA, and not feel like I'm in mud everytime I go past fire..And not have to retard the settings to be a hair above wire frame. lol

[DABhand]

Yeah the 5670 will do the job, but look at the new series 6 ATI cards or the Geforce 460. Great value and performance from both.

[CrustyCat]

So, when the processor needs to read from or write to a location in main memory, it first checks whether a copy of that data is in the cache. If so, the processor immediately reads from or writes to the cache, which is much faster than reading from or writing to main memory. If it's not there, it can't use it. cache memory is speculative, hit or miss. GPU's being less that 1Ghz is irrelevant as they are parallel processors and are much faster. For example, my cpu has two cores and 410 million transistors, my gpu has 14 streaming multiprocessors and 3 billion transistors. My cpu performs at 25.28 GFLOPS, my gpu performs at 1088 GFLOPS, or around there somewhere.

[CrustyCat]

Guess I'm getting off topic, sorry.

[DABhand]

Your CPU has a much larger mnemonic table to contend with than the smaller mnemonic table on the GPU, hence why GPU's can have a higher GFLOP/s

Hell IBM's supercomputer is in the PFLOPs doesn't mean it would be a great set of CPU's to play DA-O on

Modifié par DABhand, 25 octobre 2010 - 10:55 .

[Trefalen]

So many desicions, I used to be the guy all my friends came to because I knew all this backwards and forwards. But my job focus changed and now I'm not on top of all this, like I used to be.

I have XP sp3, 4g, and wonder if a better card is going to be gimped by XP? I thought about going to Win 7, but friends have warned me off it for now. I'm not even going to consider Vista with 7 out, I figure Vista will be abandoned soon enough and I'll be right back where I am now..

UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Modifié par Trefalen, 27 octobre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Gorath Alpha]

It's like this: when it comes to games, the limitations of the consoles become a lid atop what a PC game graphics can do. There is nothing in the wings to replace either Microsoft's or Sony's consoles, so that Dx9 graphics is as good as we can get until new consoles appear. That means that High End cards that are currently priced with the Mainline ones remain good buys (HD 4850).